.Official Staff CommunicationThis thread is about the House Resolution and public responses by political organizations. Not about the broader Israel/Palestine conflict. Get back on topic.
.Official Staff CommunicationThis thread is about the House Resolution and public responses by political organizations. Not about the broader Israel/Palestine conflict. Get back on topic.
I dunno how the dude hasn't been perma'd yet. He's literally been on these antics since ResetERA started and he's still getting temps.
Doesn't surprise me just based on the other forums he posts on.
Back on topic: does anyone have links to what AOC actually said?
The last "direct" comment she made on the matter was this tweet :
She has been throwing a little shade here and there on twitter. I wish she'd take a stronger stance but hey at least it's something :/
The last "direct" comment she made on the matter was this tweet :
She has been throwing a little shade here and there on twitter. I wish she'd take a stronger stance but hey at least it's something :/
SO LET ME get this straight: The president of the United States has called neo-Nazis "very fine people"; retweeted neo-Nazis; told an audience of Jewish-Americans that Israel is "your country"; and indulged in viciously anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. While running for office, he tweeted an image of Hillary Clinton inside a Star of David, next to a pile of cash; told an audience of Jewish donors, "You want to control your politicians, that's fine"; and put out a campaign ad that attacked three rich and powerful Jewish figures. While a private citizen, he insisted only "short guys that wear yarmulkes" should count his money and kept a book of Adolf Hitler's speeches on his bedside table.
He has never apologized for any of this. Nor has he been censured by Congress.
Since coming to office, he has hired, among others, Sebastian Gorka — who made the Nazi-linked Hungarian group Vitézi Rend "proud" when he wore its medal to an inauguration ball — and Steve Bannon, who didn't want his daughters attending a particular school in Los Angeles because of "the number of Jews."
Neither of them has apologized. Nor have they been censured by Congress.
---
Last October, a far-right conspiracy theorist — who, like the president and other prominent Republicans, blamed "globalists" like Soros for allowing immigrant "invaders" to come into the United States — shot and killed 11 Jewish worshippers in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. To quoteAdam Serwer of The Atlantic: "The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election."
On Wednesday, however, the House Democratic leadership will try and formally censure Rep. Ilhan Omar — a black Somali-American Muslim woman who came to the United States as a refugee, and who, in recent days, has been compared to the 9/11 terrorists by Republicans in West Virginia and described as "filth" by an adviser to the president — for saying that she wanted "to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country." Her fellow congressional Democrats have said little or nothing about the aforementioned and shameful Republican record of anti-Semitism, but many have joined the pile-on against Omar. One of them — Rep. Juan Vargas — went out of his way to insist, rather revealingly, that "questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable."
So my simple point is this: Whether or not you agree with Omar's remarks, whether or not you were personally offended, anyone who tells you that these nonstop, bipartisan political attacks on her are about fighting anti-Semitism is gaslighting you.
I hadn't seen or made my post as a response to other people's post but the news/info that she's in trouble for saying it's all about the money in regard to AIPAC. I know she said some other stuff and apologized for that, but it seems like the AIPAC comment got her in a lot of trouble. Seeing AIPAC seems like a foreign influence made is what I'm commenting on. What if Russia had something similar, to donate to politicians making some defend Russia's actions with regard to it's neighbors (Trump: They are both Russia since they both speak the same language), or when Russia want's certain things done (no protesting Russia in America). It just seems messed up.It's not. I bet you'll find the majority, if not all, of the posters your talking about think both should stay out of influencing the US government. and have firmly scolded Russias influence. Of course, this implies they were sticking up for Israel, when only one poster has made that distinction and has been dog piled on this on page 15, when many posters arguments are far more nuanced than that despite being painted as people who had no problem with what Isreal/AIPAC was doing. Mine included.
It's so transparent, especially when it's laid out like this.
Lmk when Italy starts killing brown people for living in their own homes.And yet Israel is the only nation that gets calls for abolishment on this forum.
Good piece by Mehdi Hasan.
The Intercept: Republicans and Democrats Say Their Criticism of Ilhan Omar Is About Anti-Semitism. They're Gaslighting You.
Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
What?Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
I like how judd calls goes both sides then posts the actual quote which completely kills his both sides argument
Ty was looking for some good articles to shareGood piece by Mehdi Hasan.
The Intercept: Republicans and Democrats Say Their Criticism of Ilhan Omar Is About Anti-Semitism. They're Gaslighting You.
The fuck?Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
I mean, we should, but one of the parties is explicitly uninterested in doing it whatsoever.What?
Are they not elected politicians of the United States of America?
Should we not police ourselves as a country?
And Dems aren't going to be able to get the GOP to go along with a statement directly aimed at him, which would frame criticism as partisan, so they don't do it.The fuck?
This whole thing started because Kevin McCarthy tried to censor the first two Muslim women who were elected to congress.
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?And Dems aren't going to be able to get the GOP to go along with a statement directly aimed at him, which would frame criticism as partisan, so they don't do it.
They absolutely should put up a paired resolution to address this as well.This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already doing this and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
No, of course not. I'm speaking institutionally as organizations. A Steve King wouldn't be tolerated in the Dem's caucus (see: Northam response) but the GOP has very few actual standards.Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
This is really really not true, and I got to believe that you know that this is not true.
Interesting. Glad she posted that. I wonder how much of her speech is being stifled simply because of the Democratic Party.
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her "allegiance to a foreign country" line."This thing you didn't say is really hurtful, you shouldn't say it. But let me make it look like you did...."
Why indeed would she bristle at that?
"Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.Fucking what?
Man these trolls are getting lazier by the minute.
I get it that you're speaking "institutionally as organization", so do I, so was the article, I mean, it's literally talking about the Democratic party. The issue is that you make claims that are demonstrably false.No, of course not. I'm speaking institutionally as organizations. A Steve King wouldn't be tolerated in the Dem's caucus (see: Northam response) but the GOP has very few actual standards.
No, you were not. You said the following:I get it that you're speaking "institutionally as organization", so do I, so was the article, I mean, it's literally talking about the Democratic party. The issue is that you make claims that are demonstrably false.
Not sure how's the fact that Steve King is unlikely to win a dem primary is relevant to any of that.
Which is explicitly talking about about individual party members criticizing Republicans.Is your argument that the Democrats never criticize a republican unless they can get a bipartisan support for that criticism?
There's an actual pledge that people are asked to sign or they'll get fired."Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.
This is nonsense. Democrats have a duty as elected officials to condemn and obstruct wrongdoing on either side of the aisle to the best of their ability. The newer progressives are actively doing this already and there is absolutely no reason why the Democrat controlled House could not draft a resolution against Islamophobia in response to the any of the countless instances of it from the GOP.
And dem leadership "as an institution" never attacked the GOP without bipartisan support?No, you were not. You said the following:
Which is explicitly talking about about individual party members criticizing Republicans.
Please don't do this.
Parties will self-police themselves. Going "why didn't the Dems censure Trump" is ridiculous because they hold no authority or influence over him.
It's unsurprising that the resolution doesn't actually mention Omar's words, because linking them to the dual loyalty canard requires untenable logical leaps. The claim that the statement was anti-Semitic rests upon the word "allegiance," which pundits have spent the past week torturing with dim-witted hermeneutics. Chait wrote, "To believe in a strong American alliance with Israel . . . is not the same thing as giving one's allegiance to that country." Yet nothing in the sentence Omar actually said speaks to the question of Jews' loyalty or Americanness. It didn't mention Jews at all, but only political actors who "push for allegiance" to Israel. This is an entirely fair-minded description of, for instance, attempts to curtail Americans' right to protest other nations with legislation that criminalizes participation in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. "Allegiance" is also a reasonable label for the unquestioning devotion to an American-Israeli alliance demanded across the spectrum of the political mainstream. Democratic congressman Juan Vargas admitted as much in a tweet condemning Omar on Monday, in which he wrote that "questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable."
It is this questioning—not anti-Semitism—that has been Omar's crime all along.
This is a good question to ask. On paper, this seems fine. The problem is that if the GOP won't play ball, you end up with censures/resolutions/etc on topics condemning behavior that pass on a party line vote. Which the GOP is deliberately baiting out so that they can claim that accusations of "racism/anti-semitism/homophobia" aren't real problems but are instead just partisan attacks. This is obviously bad for a number of reasons, and that implicit threat is what gets you the current scenario- individual reps, even leaders decrying behavior but without official measures being taken by the House. It's not unique to us, you see this play out in the UK as well.Just a thought but maybe censuring people from the other party who are actually doing what bad faith actors are accusing you of is better then the current spineless autocannibalism that dems are currently engaged in.
Dem leadership and instittutions can actually enforce consequences on their membership. If Justin Fairfax tries to run for Governor in 2 years, he's not going to be getting endorsements, donations, etc. from inside the party. Because they have power to deny it. They don't have that power to deny support for say, a Corey Stewart bid on the GOP side.And dem leadership "as an institution" never attacked the GOP without bipartisan support?
Seriously, what are you even arguing anymore?
I know you follow politics close enough to know that none of that shit is remotely true.
Dem leadership and instittutions can actually enforce consequences on their membership. If Justin Fairfax tries to run for Governor in 2 years, he's not going to be getting endorsements, donations, etc. from inside the party. Because they have power to deny it.
This is a good question to ask. On paper, this seems fine. The problem is that if the GOP won't play ball, you end up with censures/resolutions/etc on topics condemning behavior that pass on a party line vote. Which the GOP is deliberately baiting out so that they can claim that accusations of "racism/anti-semitism/homophobia" aren't real problems but are instead just partisan attacks. This is obviously bad for a number of reasons, and that implicit threat is what gets you the current scenario- individual reps, even leaders decrying behavior but without official measures being taken by the House. It's not unique to us, you see this play out in the UK as well.
I suppose I should have clarified that there is no moral reason for them not to condemn Islamophobia in the same manner that they are condemning alleged anti-Semitism with this resolution. You're absolutely correct and as an Arab American it is absolutely infuriating to see the Palestinian people as well as the larger Muslim and Arab communities silenced in these discussions.If Democrats are institutionally opposed to islamophobia, they should stop bombing (and supporting the bombing of) majority Muslim countries who pose no threat to the US. Out-group bigotry/racism *begins* with the oppression and exploitation of that group by the majority for material reasons. Race enters the picture when a majority group needs to justify their oppression of another group (as Barbara Fields has shown persuasively).
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her "allegiance to a foreign country" line.
This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn't care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.
"Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.
So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
I'm pretty sure she isnt talking about jews pledging allegiance to Israel. I think its pretty explicit that she is talking about our politicians pledging allegiance. It seems pretty clear by the fact that she said she cant pledge allegiance to them. Last I checked, she is not jewish, and as another has said, a direct rebuke of proposed legislation that basically would make it illegal for organizations to criticize or boycott Israel for its behavior.Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her "allegiance to a foreign country" line.
This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn't care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.
"Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.
Please, if only she bristled instead of repeating her "allegiance to a foreign country" line.
This is a 100% an insane strategy. At the very least it shows she doesn't care about the context of how she chooses to criticize Israel.
"Pledging allegiance to another country" has been said by her more than once. Try again.
But you're calling it "autocannibalism", when really it's the party as an institution enforcing ideological discipline. The problem is idea that Omar and The Democratic Party are of one group. People with ideas like Omar's are not welcome in the party. They might get elected as Democrats from time to time, but they're not allowed to influence party policy.
yepI think you're actually missing the context here, and not her. Anyone calling this anti-Semitic is willfully ignoring that anti-BDS bills are asking you to pledge allegiance to another country and this is clearly what she's referencing. The effort to shut down that conversation by charging that it is bigotry to state the current reality is absurd.
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?Important point for anyone with dreams of reforming or "taking back" the Democratic party for the left.
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)So like that''s fair but that does nothing to change (and in fact in my mind makes more clear) how much of a self inflicted wound the current dem response is. To paraphrase myself from earlier, it's both morally bankrupt and politically ineffective and thus something no one should be supporting unless their end goal is a further entrenchment of the american political class' inability to question Israel.
I'm pretty sure she isnt talking about jews pledging allegiance to Israel. I think its pretty explicit that she is talking about our politicians pledging allegiance. It seems pretty clear by the fact that she said she cant pledge allegiance to them. Last I checked, she is not jewish, and as another has said, a direct rebuke of proposed legislation that basically would make it illegal for organizations to criticize or boycott Israel for its behavior.
Unless you are referring to something else. Then I'm confused.
The Texas law prohibits all state agencies from contracting with companies that boycott Israel, and requires such contractors to sign a pledge that states that they "[do] not currently boycott Israel; and will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract."
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
lmost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)
Denying institutional support to Justin Fairfax if he tries to run is a bad thing?
The actual resolution they're putting out is fine. Omar herself will almost certainly be signing it, because there's nothing actually wrong with it and I'm pretty sure she's messing up because she's not great at talking about this topic and twitter amplifies those problems a hundredfold. (Royalan's read is basically the same as mine as things currently stand.)